And if you say "aliens" did it, who created the aliens? Evolution and science do not rule out God.

So who won the debate?

gordo97 said:

---

So who won the debate?

---

GOD

Well, one of the recent findings of soft tissue in fossils believed to be 65+ million years old. It was pretty funny seeing the scientific community go to great lengths to try to "prove" the tissue was lab contamination, planted by someone, etc.

And, yes, I know about the theory that maybe it was iron that caused the lack of decay...but, we all know that the environment the duck billed dino lived in was not devoid of moisture (opposite, exactly), so the water would have caused "normal" decay to occur, meaning the fossils are nearly as old as our "proven" dating methods led us to believe.

Did you read one single study I gave you? I gave you so many. You didn't read one? Look, it's not one single animal that gets this special gene and all of a sudden he can't breed with anyone. It's acting on a group. Let's take 2 million bacteria, and split them in 2 and put them in different environments with different selective pressures. After 5 years bacteria from the first group cannot breed with bacteria from the second group. These changes built up enough that they are distinct. But in no point was any bacteria in one group unable to breed with the rest of the group.
When creatures cannot breed they are by definition a distinct species. Even if very similar. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Each new creature is close enough it can breed with it's parents, it's siblings, and their children, and their grandchildren. But they are a bit different, those change accumulate and eventually they are too different to breed with some other bacteria or whatever that stayed red.

Astro the above are some of your quotes, and I think you helped prove my point more than yours.and since you are much smarter than me, as you have also said, thanks!

In the flounder example, yes, the new flounder is a new species, but still a flounder. And yet, the two species of flounder can't even breed with each other. And, even a lower level form, bacteria, can't breed other bacteria, from the SAME strainbut, the first EVER mammal can somehow breed a non-mammal, or even a "part mammal"?

RangerAg87 said:

---

Did you read one single study I gave you? I gave you so many. You didn't read one? Look, it's not one single animal that gets this special gene and all of a sudden he can't breed with anyone. It's acting on a group. Let's take 2 million bacteria, and split them in 2 and put them in different environments with different selective pressures. After 5 years bacteria from the first group cannot breed with bacteria from the second group. These changes built up enough that they are distinct. But in no point was any bacteria in one group unable to breed with the rest of the group.
When creatures cannot breed they are by definition a distinct species. Even if very similar. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Each new creature is close enough it can breed with it's parents, it's siblings, and their children, and their grandchildren. But they are a bit different, those change accumulate and eventually they are too different to breed with some other bacteria or whatever that stayed red.

Astro the above are some of your quotes, and I think you helped prove my point more than yours.and since you are much smarter than me, as you have also said, thanks!

In the flounder example, yes, the new flounder is a new species, but still a flounder. And yet, the two species of flounder can't even breed with each other. And, even a lower level form, bacteria, can't breed other bacteria, from the SAME strainbut, the first EVER mammal can somehow breed a non-mammal, or even a "part mammal"?

---

go back and study the example of the blue and red text for your answer.

I don't know what else to do, I exactly anticipated this ignorance if not outright stupidity and provided an example to demonstrate it to a novice and yet nothing. This is like playing chess with a pigeon.

I don't know...I think he's almost there.

He's already admitted that Bacteria A has changed enough to be distinct from Bacteria B. That's really half the battle.

Next is just understanding that doing this over and over again for 4 Billion years gets us to where we are today.

So, y'all really believe that the two bacteria strains, in the example, or the two flounder species (both still fully flounder and fish) are more genetically diverse from each other (why they can't breed), than the first ever fully mammal creature is from a half-mammal/half-reptile?
That is what y'all believe? Really?

Let's go to the color graph, since ya'll seem to like that - the two strains of bacteria, that are from the EXACT strain originally are probably right in the middle of the red/blue spectrum. However, the first EVER mammal, and the part reptile creature would be at the VERY FAR corners, given that one is genetically distinct from every living thing at that time.

And, for those that don't seem to be able to read, I've already said, more than once, that I fully believe that species have evolved, but they started out as that species, not from some other being.

RangerAg87 said:

---

So, y'all really believe that the two bacteria strains, in the example, or the two flounder species (both still fully flounder and fish) are more genetically diverse from each other (why they can't breed), than the first ever fully mammal creature is from a half-mammal/half-reptile?
That is what y'all believe? Really?

Let's go to the color graph, since ya'll seem to like that - the two strains of bacteria, that are from the EXACT strain originally are probably right in the middle of the red/blue spectrum. However, the first EVER mammal, and the part reptile creature would be at the VERY FAR corners, given that one is genetically distinct from every living thing at that time.

And, for those that don't seem to be able to read, I've already said, more than once, that I fully believe that species have evolved, but they started out as that species, not from some other being.

---

the red/blue spectrum is continuous from every current living organism back to the first organism. it's not just "i'm a fish (blue) then "i'm a mammal" (red). but the analogy applies for those different evolutionary "stages" as well as for all of the different points in the evolution of an organism.

No. No non mammal ever gave birth to a mammal. Just like no red ever gave birth to a blue.

These are not instantaneous changes. The first mammal is no more a coherent concept than the first purple or blue. The changes are extraordinarily slow.

Aggrad08 said:

---

No. No non mammal ever gave birth to a mammal. Just like no red ever gave birth to a blue.

These are not instantaneous changes. The first mammal is no more a coherent concept than the first purple or blue. The changes are extraordinarily slow.

---

I know, but, going with the evolutionary model, the part mammal part reptile gave birth to the first mammal. It would be vastly more genetically different (due to no longer being a small percentage reptile), then two almost identical (used to be identical) species of algae. And yet you believe the mammal would be able to breed with part reptilian creatures, but the algae can't breed with other, almost identical algae?

In other words, the genetic mutation required to get rid of the part reptile (no matter how small a %) would cause a much larger gap (in terms of being able to breed), than in the algae or flounder examples.

RangerAg87 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

No. No non mammal ever gave birth to a mammal. Just like no red ever gave birth to a blue.

These are not instantaneous changes. The first mammal is no more a coherent concept than the first purple or blue. The changes are extraordinarily slow.

---

I know, but, going with the evolutionary model, the part mammal part reptile gave birth to the first mammal. It would be vastly more genetically different (due to no longer being a small percentage reptile), then two almost identical (used to be identical) species of algae. And yet you believe the mammal would be able to breed with part reptilian creatures, but the algae can't breed with other, almost identical algae?

In other words, the genetic mutation required to get rid of the part reptile (no matter how small a %) would cause a much larger gap (in terms of being able to breed), than in the algae or flounder examples.

---

I don't know why this is hard for you. What you said is literally untrue and we've demonstrated it. When the % difference is tiny there is no difficulty breeding. There was no first mammal. It's not a coherent concept. Go back to the image and pick the first purple.

Mammal is a broad term. Blue and red and purple are broad terms. The reality is these tiny shades in between. To assign the first blue isn't a precise enough concept to be coherent and allow the task. So we can achieve huge changes in tiny pieces. No jump need be larger than the next. No color change between letters is larger than before, but the colors do change and these cumulative changes add up. There is never a drastic jump, ever. There is no last lizard, no first mammal. No last red, no first blue.

Quote:

---

going with the evolutionary model, the part mammal part reptile gave birth to the first mammal. It would be vastly more genetically different (due to no longer being a small percentage reptile),

---

You're so so close. So close. This part mammal part reptile that finally gave birth to the first mammal isn't vastly genetically different. It's not a stepwise function. It's a slow gradient.

but still part reptile....

Quote:

---

but still part reptile....

---

But not enough reptile that breeding is prevented...

but, somehow, a flounder, which is 100% flounder can't breed to a flounder??? Or algae, which was identical a few years before??

Ok, y'all keep on believing that....

Wait until he realizes that neither of those flounders are 100% flounders...

but still more flounder than a part reptile is a mammal...and, it's still a fish

algae can't breed to algae, but a mammal can breed a part reptile....ok

Are you being deliberately thick? Am I being trolled? There is no half lizard giving birth to a mammal. Walk me through why you think that?

Quote:

---

but still more flounder than a part reptile is a mammal...and, it's still a fish

---

How do you know it's still a fish? What if its 98% Fish, 2% mammal?

It looks like there's a video now for all of you love to critique them.